pro-lifers: how much are you willing to pay?

[doc_bean]

So i had a pretty boring exam today about environmental economics, but reading this forum the last few days instead of studying gave me an idea.

One of the ideas of environmental economics is that people should pay for the effects of their actions on third parties (not producer or direct consumer). So a factory that pollutes the water should pay the residents of a nearby town (proportional to the level of pollution), or alternatively, the residents should pay the compaany to pollute less. In a 'perfect' world, who pays shouldn't have an effect on the amount of pollution that they agree upon.

Wait, I'm getting there.

So, I was thinking about the abortion issue. Clearly some people are opposed to aborions, and clearly making them just illegal isn't going to happen anytime soon (no it isn't). But let's assume we can actually outlaw them. That would mean a lot of unwanted babies would be born, a lot more oprhans. A lot of children with handicaps too. Mostly born in poor neighbourhoods. Clearly this will have a huge impact on society.
So, let's assume the government decides that the end result of just banning abortion is unacceptable. The only solution they can see is to instutitue a new tax. The profits will be (mostly) used to provide health care for the sick children, keep/raise the quality of education, building more and better orphanages, raising child payments (or whatever you call it, oh and it's a flat rate, same for every child), providing cheaper daycare (especially for studetns) and some additional spending for dealing with the increased population.

So the question is: How much are you willing to pay ?

Please note that if you say nothing, I'll take this as meaning that you obviously don't care about the (unborn) children. If you really want to stop abortions then surely you'll be prepared to spend some money on savign them ?

EDIT: damnit, i should have at least re-read the title, mods: can someone fix it ?

edit: gotcha covered, mate. ~Kukri

[Duke of Gloucester]

The completely false assumption here is that the extra babies would actually cost society money, rather than being a net benefit. Next time you study environmental economics look up demographic timebomb.

[doc_bean]

The completely false assumption here is that the extra babies would actually cost society money, rather than being a net benefit. Next time you study environmental economics look up demographic timebomb.

Regardless of what their future worth might be, it would mean a lot of extra expenses NOW. Besides, most pro-lifers are in the US where they don't have a demographic timebomb (or not as much anyway), which won't really be much of a problem once we start importing Turks anyway...

Oh, and demographic issues weren't discussed in the course, it was more about pollution and such, I don't think I'll have to study it again either

EDIT: besides the point was just to ask people how much they'd be willing to pay for enforcing this.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I don't mean to be dismissive because it is an new angle on an very old debate, so congratulations for some innovative thinking. However, I am not going to accept the premise that babies drain the economy. Even if expenditure rises in the present, that represents and investment and there are other ways of funding investments apart from taxation. I think you are wrong about the demographic timebomb in the US and the distribution of pro-lifers too.

If any pro-lifers do accept your premise then the only logical response is that they pay whatever it takes, but I want to vote GAH because I question the analysis that lies behind the poll.

[doc_bean]

I don't mean to be dismissive because it is an new angle on an very old debate, so congratulations for some innovative thinking. However, I am not going to accept the premise that babies drain the economy.

Okay, but I've read to many comments about wellfare mothers, chavs and whatnot to believe this is how most people feel. Besides, crime rates went down when abortions were on the rise (70s or so ?), not all babies turn into functioning adults and it could be argued that there is a limit to the amount of 'desired babies' in order to optimize the total wealth, but that's another debate.

Even if expenditure rises in the present, that represents and investment and there are other ways of funding investments apart from taxation.

What do you propse then ? (I figured taxation would be the most likely and acceptable scenario)

I think you are wrong about the demographic timebomb in the US and the distribution of pro-lifers too..

Possibly, they're more of a fringe group in Belgium, the really vocal ones anyway (in our defense we limit abortions to the first trimester). I thought the age distribution in the US was 'healthier' than it was in Europe.

If any pro-lifers do accept your premise then the only logical response is
that they pay whatever it takes, but I want to vote GAH because I question the analysis that lies behind the poll.

I tried to formulate the idea in a way that was a neutral as possible, to judge the actual willingness to pay of people. I don't really see how I could have turned the idea of paying to stop abortions into a better hypothetical scenario.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Okay, but I've read to many comments about wellfare mothers, chavs and whatnot to believe this is how most people feel. Besides, crime rates went down when abortions were on the rise (70s or so ?), not all babies turn into functioning adults and it could be argued that there is a limit to the amount of 'desired babies' in order to optimize the total wealth, but that's another debate.

It may be that the rise in birth rate would be amongst middle class families and that since the "welfare" mothers are having their babies now. As for the crime rate fall, we both know that association does not mean causality. As you say, it is another debate.

What do you propse then ? (I figured taxation would be the most likely and acceptable scenario)

Since we are talking about a one-off rise in birth rates without the corresponding adults to generate the wealth to care for and educate them, but once these babies reach adulthood they will be generating extra wealth for subsequent generations, you can make an argument for increasing borrowing for two decades.

I tried to formulate the idea in a way that was a neutral as possible, to judge the actual willingness to pay of people. I don't really see how I could have turned the idea of paying to stop abortions into a better hypothetical scenario.

I don't think you could have done any better. Although based on a questionable premise I do like the way you have forced pro-lifers to look at unwanted pregnancy as a problem for society and not just some unfortunate women. I am interested to see others' responses so I will stop hijacking this thread, sit back and read what others say.

[Husar]

not all babies turn into functioning adults

So you think the increase in human ressources would not be enough to pay for the rest?
Sounds very economical and almost makes me wonder whether you have some kind of heart.
Though I know that doesn't really count in hard economics because money is more important than humans anyway.

[doc_bean]

So you think the increase in human ressources would not be enough to pay for the rest?
Sounds very economical and almost makes me wonder whether you have some kind of heart.

Different debate, and I'm trying very hard here not to adress this....

Though I know that doesn't really count in hard economics because money is more important than humans anyway.

Think about it, seriously, how much is it worth to you to live in an abortion free world. If you don't even consider it worth a few bucks then this issue can't be all that important to you (which is fine by me, of course).

[Strike For The South]

Your arguement is false in saying that we would have allot more poor babies more often than not rich more well off people get abortions

[doc_bean]

Sigh, just answer the damn question instead of trying to find holes in it ! I know it's a hypothetical situation !

I don't know who gets the most abortions, though a lot of people getting them would probably have otherwise had to make sacrifices (college, some job) and whatnot that could result in a loss. Or perhaps they're middle class but don't make enough to send all their kids to college and they really wanted to, or whatnot.

Kids cost money ! Everybody knows that.

[Strike For The South]

A human life is woth much more than the prices you listed. Whatever it takes

[doc_bean]

So you'd gladly turn over half your paycheck or more for the peace of mind it gives you ?

[Strike For The South]

So you'd gladly turn over half your paycheck or more for the peace of mind it gives you ?

To save lives yes. Id rather have my peace with God than a few creature comforts.

[BigTex]

So you'd gladly turn over half your paycheck or more for the peace of mind it gives you ?

Yes.

[King Henry V]

So you'd gladly turn over half your paycheck or more for the peace of mind it gives you ?

That reminds me of the Harry Lime argument:

"Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays."

[Del Arroyo]

The premise is false. If you want to decrease the number of unwanted babies, increase birth control. Once pregnancy occurs it is not for anyone, including the mother, to interfere.

Would I be willing to fund free/subsidized birth control with my tax dollars? Sure, why not. But the premise that eliminating abortion would somehow have great economic consequences is simply false. It is a purely moral issue.

[Brenus]

I like the question. It is pure Robert Heinlein’s question. How much are you ready to pay for what you what me to do… The price of the freedom to impose…
First, abortion was illegal. This situation did exist. In the 19th Century, if you study the statistic of the Police in Paris, and the Court Documents, all “angels makers” and women allegedly guilty of abortion were prosecuted… To kill potential soldiers was a crime. Only the State can kill. And you know what: Illegal abortion broke records, women died by infection, bleeding to death, left handicapped and others nice aspects of this side of the coin, the so-called “pro-life” is just not happy to ignore but enjoy because punishment. Their respect of life doesn’t travel too far and suffers of lack of mercy. They will spit on the same foetus they will have “saved” when few years later, thanks to their stupidity, he/she will beg some coins to pay the drinks or the drugs which will allow him/her to escape from the ghettos, the favelas, and all these others zones… But they feel so-warm inside…

And their rich friends had always either to go in other country at the good moment or to “retire” in some convents where very nice and helpful nuns were ready to help. If you doubt of that, read again the report of the Police after the expulsion of the Religious Congregations and what they did find… Long before or after lunch if possible…
Abortion was legalised in France in 1974. So women stopped to have too much babies, no need to sent the children to work at the factory. I could tell you to read Victor Hugo, but you probably have English/US Authors who described the condition of misery, slavery, indignity existed. Kids went to school, and now, if I believe the new statistic, the French start to make baby again…

So, yes. Let’s them pay. You obliged a woman to keep a baby, it is yours… And under the eye of the Justice pay for his/her expenses… No budget restriction…

[Ice]

So i had a pretty boring exam today about environmental economics, but reading this forum the last few days instead of studying gave me an idea.

One of the ideas of environmental economics is that people should pay for the effects of their actions on third parties (not producer or direct consumer). So a factory that pollutes the water should pay the residents of a nearby town (proportional to the level of pollution), or alternatively, the residents should pay the compaany to pollute less. In a 'perfect' world, who pays shouldn't have an effect on the amount of pollution that they agree upon.

Wait, I'm getting there.

So, I was thinking about the abortion issue. Clearly some people are opposed to aborions, and clearly making them just illegal isn't going to happen anytime soon (no it isn't). But let's assume we can actually outlaw them. That would mean a lot of unwanted babies would be born, a lot more oprhans. A lot of children with handicaps too. Mostly born in poor neighbourhoods. Clearly this will have a huge impact on society.
So, let's assume the government decides that the end result of just banning abortion is unacceptable. The only solution they can see is to instutitue a new tax. The profits will be (mostly) used to provide health care for the sick children, keep/raise the quality of education, building more and better orphanages, raising child payments (or whatever you call it, oh and it's a flat rate, same for every child), providing cheaper daycare (especially for studetns) and some additional spending for dealing with the increased population.

So the question is: How much are you willing to pay ?

Please note that if you say nothing, I'll take this as meaning that you obviously don't care about the (unborn) children. If you really want to stop abortions then surely you'll be prepared to spend some money on savign them ?

EDIT: damnit, i should have at least re-read the title, mods: can someone fix it ?

edit: gotcha covered, mate. ~Kukri

Intersting question Doc. I have never thought about abortion in an economics viewpoint that you listed above. Being the cold hard finance/economics major that I'm turning into, this actually make me want to change my position on abortion a bit.

I'd probably be willing to pay an extra 1% of taxes if I was still against abortion.

[doc_bean]

The premise is false. If you want to decrease the number of unwanted babies, increase birth control. Once pregnancy occurs it is not for anyone, including the mother, to interfere.

Would I be willing to fund free/subsidized birth control with my tax dollars? Sure, why not. But the premise that eliminating abortion would somehow have great economic consequences is simply false. It is a purely moral issue.

The premise was needed to create a somewhat acceptable hypothetical situation. I find it amusing how so many people try to undermine that hypothetical situation (I used words like "assume" a lot, it was obvious that the situation was not the real point of my post) instead of trying to answer the question honestly.

You defined another situation to answer the same question, which is a good thing I don't really agree with the idea that birth control can stop unwanted pregnancies, but if it works for you then so be it. The question remains, how much are you willing to pay ? the actual costs are really irrelevant to the question (and incredibly hard to ascertain, since there are so many indirect effects).

The idea is that if a woman (or couple) decides to have an abortion, they do so because they believe the 'cost' (not purely financial of course, loss of time and opportunity are big issues as is emotional damage if the child is handicapped, or the result of a rape, and their are others) outweigh the benefits of keeping the child (at that time, in that particular situation), so if (cost-benefit)keeping > (cost)abortion they'll abort. (the cost of abortion is also not just the money you're paying the clinic, I believe for a lot of people an abortion is a severe emotional issue).

According to the economic theory of externalities, the optimum level of production (err...abortions in this case, not really the appropriate term to use here, I guess) is achieved when all externalities are internalized. In the case of abortions how other feel about abortions is clearly an externality, since they are neither involved in the production or consumption of the child (errr...stupid terminology), yet they clearly feel that the choice made by the parents (which optimizes their own utility function, without accounting for these externalities) has some effect on them. In order to not have an abortion it is needed that the cost of an additional child equals or lowers the 'cost' of an abortion (or that the parents are indifferent whether they have a child or not), to do this it makes sense that the third party, who derives some benefit from the process pays for this benefit in order to make the choice of the parents the optimal choice for society.

I'm merely asking how much people are willing to pay for the 'benefit' of less abortions.

Of course, no abortions is an extreme case, but I've decided to keep this relatively simple.

Please answer truthfully, people who say they'll do whatever it takes, should consider what they are doing now. They might have jobs, why not take a lesser paying job with less hours and spend your new found free time (and whatever money is not spent on food) trying to convince people to take the adoption route instead ? Because that would be equivalent to whatever it takes imo.

If you're not willing to give up your entire lifestyle then certainly there must be an upper limit to what you are willing to give up ?

[Navaros]

The implication that stopping the mass genocide of human babies should be conditional upon any factor is a very a disgusting one.

[Xiahou]

I like the question. It is pure Robert Heinlein’s question. How much are you ready to pay for what you what me to do… The price of the freedom to impose…
First, abortion was illegal. This situation did exist. In the 19th Century, if you study the statistic of the Police in Paris, and the Court Documents, all “angels makers” and women allegedly guilty of abortion were prosecuted… To kill potential soldiers was a crime. Only the State can kill. And you know what: Illegal abortion broke records, women died by infection, bleeding to death, left handicapped and others nice aspects of this side of the coin, the so-called “pro-life” is just not happy to ignore but enjoy because punishment. Their respect of life doesn’t travel too far and suffers of lack of mercy. They will spit on the same foetus they will have “saved” when few years later, thanks to their stupidity, he/she will beg some coins to pay the drinks or the drugs which will allow him/her to escape from the ghettos, the favelas, and all these others zones… But they feel so-warm inside…

From everything I've read, the numbers of "back alley" abortions and their horrible side-effects are both overstated. Yes, people had illegal abortions, and yes some had serious health-consequences, but not so many of either as some would have you believe. It's not as the modern clinic abortions are without risks. Great work demonizing those who disagree with you though- sweeping generalizations work great for that.

On topic, I would be opposed to paying a 'keep abortion illegal' tax for the same reasons I would be opposed to paying a 'keep murder illegal' tax. Any government that would hold you up for money or make it legal for groups of people to be killed needs voted out, not paid. However, I can and do give money to pro-life groups that inform and help care for pregnant mothers and more importantly, I vote my conscience.

I'd also lodge a complaint about the original premise- I'd be opposed to paying money to a factory or taking money from one just to make them not pollute a local river. They should be doing the right thing without having to blackmail the locals. There are consequences for business that refuse to act in their locality's interests- people can and do boycott products in favor of eco-friendly ones.

[doc_bean]

I'd also lodge a complaint about the original premise- I'd be opposed to paying money to a factory or taking money from one just to make them not pollute a local river. They should be doing the right thing without having to blackmail the locals. There are consequences for business that refuse to act in their locality's interests- people can and do boycott products in favor of eco-friendly ones.

You boycott Chinese products because they aren't made in an environmentally friendly way ?

This is just one of the options to reduce pollution to an 'optimal level', the example I gave is largely theoretical in nature but pretty important nonetheless. The question isn't really should the company pollute ? , because that's often unavoidable, but how much pollution are we willing to accept ? given that the company also provides employment, produces useful products etc.

Lots of governments have emission taxes for example, and several governments pay companies for implementing environmentally friendly measures. I guess that happens more in Europe though, in the US it seems to be more about law suits, which are of course just another way of making a company pay for the damage it has done (knowingly or unknowingly).

EDIT: i don't want to derail the thread in a discussion about environmental policies, I just wanted to explain the idea a bit more. Dmanit, this thread has me explaining a lot.

EDIT2: I'd also like to add that a similar method like I'm using in this thread is recognized by US courts as a way of determining a monatairy value for environmental damage after, for example, an oil spill.

[Kralizec]

The implication that stopping the mass genocide of human babies should be conditional upon any factor is a very a disgusting one.

Doc_bean didn't say that.

He asked you about the maximal input you're willing to give if that was conditional for a ban on abortions.

Your answer is a copout. You don't feel that it's your fault that abortions happen, wich is true, but wouldn't want to give a penny to prevent that wich you consider murder.

[Samurai Waki]

People will always play the moral card first, until its actually implemented and then whine about it when theres fifty dollars Cut out from the paycheck. Yes, I would pay but I wouldn't be happy about it.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I look forward to the day that the medical technology is there to safely remove the unwanted fetus and implant it into those that do. That's when it will be put up or shut up time. It will be a win-win situation, no?

[Husar]

The premise was needed to create a somewhat acceptable hypothetical situation.

Well, I can't answer a hypothetical question because I don't live a hypothetical life.
The amount I would be willing to spend would depend on my monthly net payment, if I'd vote 600$ now and would hypothetically only get 500 permonth, we could assume that I would not only be unable to pay, I assume I might also starve to death, then lose my job and...
So first you have to give me a hypothetical monthly income and then we can talk about it again.

[Vladimir]

I like the question. It is pure Robert Heinlein’s question. How much are you ready to pay for what you what me to do… The price of the freedom to impose…

So, this is why France has to import labor from Africa and the Middle East? What is the cost to society then. 100 cars a night, on a good day, seems quite expensive.

[Strike For The South]

I view every abortion as a murder, its a heinous crime and should be proscuted as such. Its a sad day when we can put a price on life. Fiscal matters are important but I put the welfare of infants above them. Besides the fact this suitation is a lduoicrs one. If I was put in charge of the goverment I would lower taxes and outlaw abortion. The key is not how much money you can pump out of me but how you use it.

[Csargo]

While it's not my right to judge others actions I believe somewhat like SFTS that abortion is murder. Who has the right to take someone else's life even if that life isn't completely developed or even born yet. You can't put a price on an unborn childs life.

[Tuuvi]

I would be willing to pay 5$ but anything above that and it's a no.